President Barack Obama promised the American people that if the President of Assyria was to commit genocide using chemical or biological weapons that he would be forced to intervene in a military capacity in the ongoing civil war.

Right now American Forces are heading towards Syria.

There are a few issues...first, whether biological weapons were used...secondly, who used them on who...and thirdly...what is the point in a one off military strike as a deterance AFTER the weapons have already been used.

If Noone wants regieme change...then Military action has no long term aim...except to provoke a response.

Politicians lie all the time, as a Second Term President, Barack Obama can not hope to win the next General Ellection...so he has nothing to looose by breaking this promise IMHO.

The British Position was first very vocal, as you might expect, America came-a-calling, and up poped the Governor...er...I mean Prime Minister of England to assert his approval. Fortunately, the party that took us into Iraq, is in opposition now, as a direct consequence...and obviously they do not wish for a repeat performance and have demanded that the British Government wait and go through the United Nations. So far, they have got their wish, and whilst the House of Commons debates Assyria...the vote this time will not sanction military action.

The United Nations, promises to release by Saturday, the results of on the ground testing in Syria. On that basis they will of course go to the United Nations Security Council for a Vote on allowing Military Action.

The problem with that, is that two of the Security Council Members are supporting President Assad. Let us just say that Russia appears deadly serious over Assyria...more serious then I have seen her in years about defending a friend. She is so serious, that when the Americans arrive in Waters near Assyria, they will not be alone. Russia is also sending battle ships, and she has no intention of sitting passively by.

I am fearful, because, whilst Russia often makes a lot of noise, once threatening, for example, to aim her missiles at European Capitols if they allowed the Eastern Block to aid the American Starwars programme...the point is...she didnt actually act.

If she is sending Warships, then it can be considered more then one of her usual immature threats.

China has a prime directive believe it or not. They believe that you should not interfere with the internal workings of a different soveringty, unless it has breached its own soverignty first. So far President Assad has not attacked other nations, only a rebellion. As far as the Chinese are concerned, its got nothing to do with anyone else.

The European Union is silent on the issue because Angela Merkel has bigger fish to fry...like getting ellected for a third term...Oh Yes, the German Chancellor could take a dive next month...sooo she's unavialable for comment...except to say the Euro Crisis is all the fault of Greece, which she said to a rally of her supporters (Germans and Rallys shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentance...but thats what the officials called it...) and Spain, which is just as bankrupt is trying to distract everyone by threatening the British Realm of Gibraltar...I mean FFS!

President Barack Obama promised the American people that if the President of Assyria was to commit genocide using chemical or biological weapons that he would be forced to intervene in a military capacity in the ongoing civil war.

Right now American Forces are heading towards Syria.

There are a few issues...first, whether biological weapons were used...secondly, who used them on who...and thirdly...what is the point in a one off military strike as a deterance AFTER the weapons have already been used.

If Noone wants regieme change...then Military action has no long term aim...except to provoke a response.

Politicians lie all the time, as a Second Term President, Barack Obama can not hope to win the next General Ellection...so he has nothing to looose by breaking this promise IMHO.

The British Position was first very vocal, as you might expect, America came-a-calling, and up poped the Governor...er...I mean Prime Minister of England to assert his approval. Fortunately, the party that took us into Iraq, is in opposition now, as a direct consequence...and obviously they do not wish for a repeat performance and have demanded that the British Government wait and go through the United Nations. So far, they have got their wish, and whilst the House of Commons debates Assyria...the vote this time will not sanction military action.

The United Nations, promises to release by Saturday, the results of on the ground testing in Syria. On that basis they will of course go to the United Nations Security Council for a Vote on allowing Military Action.

The problem with that, is that two of the Security Council Members are supporting President Assad. Let us just say that Russia appears deadly serious over Assyria...more serious then I have seen her in years about defending a friend. She is so serious, that when the Americans arrive in Waters near Assyria, they will not be alone. Russia is also sending battle ships, and she has no intention of sitting passively by.

I am fearful, because, whilst Russia often makes a lot of noise, once threatening, for example, to aim her missiles at European Capitols if they allowed the Eastern Block to aid the American Starwars programme...the point is...she didnt actually act.

If she is sending Warships, then it can be considered more then one of her usual immature threats.

China has a prime directive believe it or not. They believe that you should not interfere with the internal workings of a different soveringty, unless it has breached its own soverignty first. So far President Assad has not attacked other nations, only a rebellion. As far as the Chinese are concerned, its got nothing to do with anyone else.

The European Union is silent on the issue because Angela Merkel has bigger fish to fry...like getting ellected for a third term...Oh Yes, the German Chancellor could take a dive next month...sooo she's unavialable for comment...except to say the Euro Crisis is all the fault of Greece, which she said to a rally of her supporters (Germans and Rallys shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentance...but thats what the officials called it...) and Spain, which is just as bankrupt is trying to distract everyone by threatening the British Realm of Gibraltar...I mean FFS!

Ever since his election and seeing just what he meant when he said he wanted to "fundamentally change America", I've considered Barack Obama a dangerous man for this country, but I didn't realize how dangerous. On the night we were attacked in Benghazi and Americans died, our Commander in Chief was where? I believe he went to bed and just left our people to die, and still to this day, no one has been held accountable. When Hillary Clinton finally dragged her sorry butt up the Hill to answer questions, she screeched, "What does it matter now?" And that's the point with this administration, it didn't matter, their lives didn't matter to any of these soulless gutless cowards, from the President straight on down the line. He doesn't act when he should, and acts when he shouldn't.

He's backed himself into a corner over Syria with his comment last year about a "red line" and now he's wanting to take military action by shooting a shot over Syria's bow to send a message to Assad. He has no idea what he is doing and what he is possibly starting. The British House of Commons has spoken and they have said, "No", so it looks like, for now, if Obama does this, we are on our own in this. When Bush was President, Obama said the President had no authority under the Constitution to take military action without bringing it before Congress unless we were in immediate or imminent danger. Well Bush did get the approval of Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama refuses to call Congress back in session and present this to them for their approval. Where does he go to explain himself yet again, on another television program, this time PBS. He can't meet with Congress, but he has time to do a bus tour to keep campaigning, and he has time to do television interviews to discuss Syria, but he refuses to meet with Congress or come before the American people to explain what he's about to do and why.

He's a one-man wrecking crew about to get us into a real dangerous mess if he doesn't stop and start thinking strategically about what action is best for the security of our nation.

2) When Bush was President, Obama said the President had no authority under the Constitution to take military action without bringing it before Congress unless we were in immediate or imminent danger. Well Bush did get the approval of Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama refuses to call Congress back in session and present this to them for their approval.

3) We should all be scared, Dave.

1) I kind of aggree...His whole Administration has been to do exactly what his people dont want him to do. He appologises to the Arabs, He sends aid to the palestinians, he keeps holding his country at fiscal cliff levels, he pushed through a basic National Health Service in the United States, he left Hosni Mubarack to hang in Egypt, and now he wants to fire a round of misiles into Assyria to prevent something that has already happened He wiped millions of the shares of BP for that oil spill, and pretty much abandoned his citizens in Benghazi.

2) The US President doesnt need Congress to authorise war Now...even with afghanistan and Iraq...both the US and UK put the war to a vote. No internal laws were violated by either Nation...I assumed that Obama would immediately call Congress and have them assemble for a vote on the use of American forces in Syria...even if it is just a few missiles rather then a full scale land invasion..which ironically, the latter would at least make sense...whereas I simply dont understand the point in warning somebody for a using a weapon...when they already used it...deterents work best when deployed before the action they prohibit take place I dare say this is what happens when you put a civilian with no military experience, in a high ranking military position...obviously...he doesnt get it

3 I dont fear America bombing Syria...neither do I fear Syrian response...what I fear is the Russians deciding to attack the United States in retribution...we've seen how countries get sucked into wars due to alliances...look at how the first world war began...the echo is there...I fear a conflict between the US and Russia for two reasons...first, I fear the conflict itself may happen in the med, where Russia could sink US ships. Secondly, the US is running low on money, and we have a president comming to the end of his time...it wouldnt be a good time for the US to find itself in any strife at all. Finally...the last thing we want is to be dragged into a REAL war between America and Russia...

You see how Syria has become a by-word...just like Yugoslavia, Serbia, Bosnia did in the first world war...people forget that the triggers are not usually the focal point a year onwards.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the exclusive right to declare war. Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. According to historian Thomas Woods, "Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — which refers to the president as the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States' — has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress."[4] Since World War II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. "police action", which are deemed legally legitimate by Congress, and various United Nations Resolutions because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Authorization for Use of Force.

Noone expected the Commons to dare actually defy the US...I mean, most of us dont want to do anything about Syria...but what the people want dont mean anything to the Government anymore.

Yesterday they didnt just upset the US...they also upset the Prime Minister...it looks very bad when you, as a leader, want one thing...and your Government, and people say you cant have it

Speaking of looking bad, first, the President threw out that "red line" comment last year without any thought, and obviously with no afterthought to prepare to back it up, then he talks as if he will definitely be taking action, all the while announcing what he's planning--"limited and narrow", "shot over the bow"--but now he's willing to wait to get Congress' approval AFTER they return from their break. He's leaving Tuesday to go to Sweden and then on to Russia and Congress doesn't get back 'til Sept 9.

Speaking of looking bad, first, the President threw out that "red line" comment last year without any thought, and obviously with no afterthought to prepare to back it up, then he talks as if he will definitely be taking action, all the while announcing what he's planning--"limited and narrow", "shot over the bow"--but now he's willing to wait to get Congress' approval AFTER they return from their break. He's leaving Tuesday to go to Sweden and then on to Russia and Congress doesn't get back 'til Sept 9.

Is Obama hoping Congress will say, "No", so he has a way out of this?

For the first time since WWII, the POTUS is actually allowing the Congress to do their job.

For the first time since WWII, the POTUS is actually allowing the Congress to do their job.

Why do you say "first time since WWII"? President Bush went to Congress to get approval for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I heard some say the President didn't need Congress' approval to act militarily on Syria and others say he did so I was confused. If I'm understanding what I've read regarding Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, by virtue of being Commander in Chief, a President is allowed to take military action without having to go to Congress. He can't declare war, only Congress has the power to do that.

Don't get me wrong, I think he should go to Congress...he should have gone to Congress before now, before he made all these public statements about taking action. And he certainly shouldn't be leaking information and talking publicly about what action he's planning to take! I just don't understand the way he's going about this, it's hurting his credibility even more, if that's possible, and it's hurting our country's credibility, our standing in the world.

This will just embolden countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Russia even more.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power to declare war, but Article 2, Section 2 gives the President power as Commander in Chief over our armed forces.

Ahhh...the good old "Queens Perogative"

In England the Speaker of The House of Commons acts as The Queen. You see in olden days, the Queen would sit in the Houses and Chair the debates...Now the Speaker does that. However, The Prime Minister may act in War without the consent of the Queen, Speaker, or Parliament...using something called "The Queens Perogative" its the only time the Prime Minister can act As the Queen, by litterally, over-rulling EVERYONE.

Not even Tony Blair did that...With Iraq, whilst he did not seek permission from the Queen, He DID take it to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons voted.

NO prime minister that I have ever heard of, has used The Queens Perogative...Its the ultimate mark of the dictator.

I am not suprised your country has an exception clause also...even if it merely shifts the President from an office where he can not authorise action, to an office where he can, as the same person, and keep his position in both.